Looking at this flight on Flightaware, I noticed that it was climbing at 6000+ fpm initially. PDX-LAX is a very short flight for an MD11, but these climb rates seem higher than any other aircraft I have seen on here. What are some of the passenger aircraft with the highest climb rates out there?

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDX ... X/tracklog

You'd have to compare like for like, which becomes very hard since every airliner is different, and every flight has different loads, different atmospheric conditions, different runway lengths and different obstacles in the departure path.

I suppose you'd have to fly them all on the same day, from the same runway, with no payload and 20% of max fuel or something like that. I wouldn't mind watching this competition.

In general, though, twins have more excess thrust with all engines operating.

Airliners all have high climb rates if they're light, the weather is cool, and you don't derate.

Starlionblue wrote:

I suppose you'd have to fly them all on the same day, from the same runway, with no payload and 20% of max fuel or something like that. I wouldn't mind watching this competition.

I would place my bet on the MD11

The digital readout limit for the vertical speed band is 9,900 fpm. When the conditions are right, the actual climb rate can be higher.

Starlionblue wrote:

In general, though, twins have more excess thrust with all engines operating.

They can't use all of it though, as an engine failure at low speeds could push them off the runway due to the higher thrust asymmetry compared to a quad or trijet.

Starlionblue wrote:

Airliners all have high climb rates if they're light, the weather is cool, and you don't derate.

Out of RUH for a flight to SHJ with some cargo on a summer early evening 5000 fpm isn't unusual. I don't know how this compares to other aircraft, but I always thought that's quite impressive. That's almost highway speed, but straight up.

I don't have any figures, but flying on the Swissair MD-11s as a kid, they were definitely the best performing aircraft I have ever been on. That includes hot and high takeoffs from Africa with enough fuel to fly 10 hours back to Europe.

Starlionblue wrote:

I suppose you'd have to fly them all ..... with no payload and 20% of max fuel or something like that.

Agreed.
Thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are the two most important parameters in determining the performance of an aircraft.
For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator, and aircraft with thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1:1 can pitch straight up and maintain airspeed until performance decreases at higher altitude.
(thx to wikipedia for putting all my words in the right order )

Keeping things simple, I omitted the 20% fuel and simply divided total thrust by OEW.
I have tried to pick the best performer from each type, but I confess I didn't slog through every sub-type, so I may have missed something.

I've also included two of the most infamous under-performers in this table. i.e. the poor old "slow-climbing" A340, and of course the Il-86 which at MTOW allegedly only gains altitude due to the curvature of the earth.
Thrust- to weight (OEW) ratio
MD-11 F 0.748
B777 200LR 0.720
MD-11 pax 0.654
B777-200ER 0.615
L-1011-500 0.611

DC-10-30 0.574
A340-500 0.573
A330-200 0.534
A340-200 0.523
Il-86 0.451

The MD-11F should be excluded because the OP specifically mentioned passenger aircraft.
Note the wide difference between the B777-200ER and LR variants!
Biggest surprise was the lacklustre numbers for the A330-200

(Perhaps someone should double-check my figures.... )

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The MD-11F should be excluded because the OP specifically mentioned passenger aircraft.
Note the wide difference between the B777-200ER and LR variants!
Biggest surprise was the lacklustre numbers for the A330-200

(Perhaps someone should double-check my figures.... )

There goes my story.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The MD-11F should be excluded because the OP specifically mentioned passenger aircraft.

The flight he linked was a FedEx MD11F. So I assume when he mentioned "passenger aircraft" he actually meant "commercial aircraft"?

I did some thrust to weight calculations earlier as well. I included 20% max fuel. But I gave up after 5 aircraft because I was not sure whether it was relevant that much and there are too many A320-family weight and thrust combinations, I couldn't be bothered to find the most optimal. These are my numbers:
MD11F - 0.61
B777F - 0.55
B744 - 0.51
B748 - 0.47
B753 - 0.55

sho69607 wrote:

Looking at this flight on Flightaware, I noticed that it was climbing at 6000+ fpm initially. PDX-LAX is a very short flight for an MD11, but these climb rates seem higher than any other aircraft I have seen on here. What are some of the passenger aircraft with the highest climb rates out there?

Here's another one to add to the mix.

North American F-86F Sabre (~1953)
Power to (empty) weight ratio 0.5312

Rate of climb for the F-86F is listed as 9,000 ft/min, but that is probably with a standard fuel load, pilot and 0.50 caliber ammunition, bringing the thrust to weight ratio down to 0.42

It makes you wonder if even a "slow" climber such as an A340 could hit 10,000 ft/min in stripped down airshow trim?

Horstroad wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The MD-11F should be excluded because the OP specifically mentioned passenger aircraft.

The flight he linked was a FedEx MD11F. So I assume when he mentioned "passenger aircraft" he actually meant "commercial aircraft"?

I saw that too, but it rather spoils it for all the contributors who are not cargo pilots. Watching a roller coaster from the ground isn't as much fun as being on-board.

I did some thrust to weight calculations earlier as well. I included 20% max fuel. But I gave up after 5 aircraft because I was not sure whether it was relevant that much ...
These are my numbers:
MD11F - 0.61
B777F - 0.55
B744 - 0.51
B748 - 0.47
B753 - 0.55

I recognise that omitting all fuel left the aircraft in bare airshow trim, but the problem I see straight away with a flat rate 20% fuel is that it gets a B744 from DFW to JFK, whereas 20% fuel on a B753 gets it from somewhere in Texas to... somewhere else still in Texas. That penalizes aircraft with extreme long range / large fuel tanks.

Besides, picking the B753 was a mistake because thrust & fuel capacity are more or less the same across the 757 range, but both the -200 and the -F are lighter in terms of OEW. It only pays to go with the physically larger model if it comes with significantly larger engines. That is the reason I selected the short-body L-1011-500.

But you are right; we could both waste our lives searching for absolute numbers that aren't even that relevant.

In any case, the MD-11 seems to feature high on these lists.

It has a hight thrust to weight ratio. But why? They accidentally slapped too large engines on it? It performs better than the quads, for obvious reasons? But why better than two-engine ones? Or is this a remnant of the aircraft's much discussed higher speeds for landing/take-off and the need to get to those speeds faster?

AirlineCritic wrote:

Or is this a remnant of the aircraft's much discussed higher speeds for landing/take-off and the need to get to those speeds faster?

Yes. The MD-11 has a small and relatively old wing, which requires a high take-off speed.

Also, its inefficient design required a lot of fuel to achieve the desired range, resulting in a very low ratio OEW / MTOW for the MD-11. The A330-200 can transport roughly the same number of passengers over the same distance but with a 40 ton lower MTOW. In a comparison at OEW (no fuel, no payload) this will favor such "ultra-long range" aircraft. Note the 77L's high thrust-to-weight ratio at OEW.

I would think the A319 has quite a good ratio. Of course the 752, the 73G. I'm interested how the A359 fairs, its quite good off the field, and that wing just lifts the aircraft like nothing.

DylanHarvey wrote:

I would think the A319 has quite a good ratio. Of course the 752, the 73G. I'm interested how the A359 fairs, its quite good off the field, and that wing just lifts the aircraft like nothing.

My purely subjective impression from the cockpit is that A351 has more oomph than the A359. I haven't jotted down any numbers, mind you.

Starlionblue wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

I would think the A319 has quite a good ratio. Of course the 752, the 73G. I'm interested how the A359 fairs, its quite good off the field, and that wing just lifts the aircraft like nothing.

My purely subjective impression from the cockpit is that A351 has more oomph than the A359. I haven't jotted down any numbers, mind you.

Thats interesting actually. I was looking at the ACAPS and it seemed like for being 36t heavier the 35K had equal performance off the field which is crazy impressive. On a hot day how high can you guys get initially at MTOW? is 330/340 at 316t plausible for an initial level?

DylanHarvey wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

I would think the A319 has quite a good ratio. Of course the 752, the 73G. I'm interested how the A359 fairs, its quite good off the field, and that wing just lifts the aircraft like nothing.

My purely subjective impression from the cockpit is that A351 has more oomph than the A359. I haven't jotted down any numbers, mind you.

Thats interesting actually. I was looking at the ACAPS and it seemed like for being 36t heavier the 35K had equal performance off the field which is crazy impressive. On a hot day how high can you guys get initially at MTOW? is 330/340 at 316t plausible for an initial level?

That is plausible depending on the conditions on the day. The A359 will go somewhat higher at MTOW, but there's a difference between cruise performance and initial climb performance.

Again, anecdotal on the initial climb performance.

Starlionblue wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

My purely subjective impression from the cockpit is that A351 has more oomph than the A359. I haven't jotted down any numbers, mind you.

Thats interesting actually. I was looking at the ACAPS and it seemed like for being 36t heavier the 35K had equal performance off the field which is crazy impressive. On a hot day how high can you guys get initially at MTOW? is 330/340 at 316t plausible for an initial level?

That is plausible depending on the conditions on the day. The A359 will go somewhat higher at MTOW, but there's a difference between cruise performance and initial climb performance.

Again, anecdotal on the initial climb performance.

Yes that seems reasonable. And yeah I’ve heard conditions depending the 359 can get 370/380 at MTOW if conditions are right on.

Horstroad wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The MD-11F should be excluded because the OP specifically mentioned passenger aircraft.

The flight he linked was a FedEx MD11F. So I assume when he mentioned "passenger aircraft" he actually meant "commercial aircraft"?

I did some thrust to weight calculations earlier as well. I included 20% max fuel. But I gave up after 5 aircraft because I was not sure whether it was relevant that much and there are too many A320-family weight and thrust combinations, I couldn't be bothered to find the most optimal. These are my numbers:
MD11F - 0.61
B777F - 0.55
B744 - 0.51
B748 - 0.47
B753 - 0.55

Yeah I just mean't commercial aircraft in general.

I don't have any data, but I've heard the 762 is a beast.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Biggest surprise was the lacklustre numbers for the A330-200

Short arm for the vertical stabilizer?

Best regards
Thomas

trnswrld wrote:

I don't have any data, but I've heard the 762 is a beast.

Continental’s 767-224ER’s had the highest possible thrust engine possible. I believe it had similar performance to a 752 despite being heavier by a lot.

Isn’t the 757 said to be a like a ‘sports car’ (I think was the analogy) because of the overpowered RB211 engines?

AirlineCritic wrote:

In any case, the MD-11 seems to feature high on these lists.

It has a hight thrust to weight ratio.

The MD-11 is the one airplane that I can remember pushing me into the seatback while in flight.

DylanHarvey wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

I don't have any data, but I've heard the 762 is a beast.

Continental’s 767-224ER’s had the highest possible thrust engine possible. I believe it had similar performance to a 752 despite being heavier by a lot.

Not similar, better, it was the only aircraft that could make a 752 look underpowered


A rocketship, and incredibly responsive

Max Q wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

I don't have any data, but I've heard the 762 is a beast.

Continental’s 767-224ER’s had the highest possible thrust engine possible. I believe it had similar performance to a 752 despite being heavier by a lot.

Not similar, better, it was the only aircraft that could make a 752 look underpowered


A rocketship, and incredibly responsive

Wow, I could only imagine one of those on EWR-ORD with a light load. When you make a 752 with 43k engines look underpowered, thats power

How ‘bout gear up to F450 in 17 minutes? CL350 even beats a LR60.

TheWorm123 wrote:

Isn’t the 757 said to be a like a ‘sports car’ (I think was the analogy) because of the overpowered RB211 engines?

TW Ratio is essentially the same as on an A321neo with fuel for the same mission.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

TheWorm123 wrote:

Isn’t the 757 said to be a like a ‘sports car’ (I think was the analogy) because of the overpowered RB211 engines?

TW Ratio is essentially the same as on an A321neo with fuel for the same mission.

best regards
Thomas

A worthy heir to the throne in that case

Concorde anybody?

AlanG1302 wrote:

Concorde anybody?

Sure. But it seems like cheating.

I have read that below 250kts it wasn't that outstanding but one must consider that they had to make big thrust reductions for noise abatement which isn't a fair comparison.

Not to forget the A310

AlanG1302 wrote:

Concorde anybody?

Concorde gave you a nudge when they lit the reheat. Takeoff felt like a 757. Granted I only flew it once, anyone expecting a fighter-like experience would be disappointed.

Now the approach speed on landing was WAY fast!

Agent wrote:

Not to forget the A310

The shortest takeoff roll and climb out of ATL I have seen was a Fedex A-310.

DL_Mech wrote:

AlanG1302 wrote:

Concorde anybody?

Concorde gave you a nudge when they lit the reheat. Takeoff felt like a 757. Granted I only flew it once, anyone expecting a fighter-like experience would be disappointed.

Now the approach speed on landing was WAY fast!

Agent wrote:

Not to forget the A310

The shortest takeoff roll and climb out of ATL I have seen was a Fedex A-310.

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots


Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher

I'd maybe even throw the 747-400 in here as being a quick climber when empty. Atlas Air operates several short flights for the NFL that I am sure climb pretty quickly. MIA-JAX, PHX-LAX, etc. I don't know what the payload would be like for that, but I can imagine they aren't using a high density configuration.

Agent wrote:

Not to forget the A310

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots

Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher[/quote]

Not saying you're wrong but I'd be surprised. We were always told that the MD-11 had the fast app. speed of commercial jets in a normal config. At MLGW it was 168kts.

CosmicCruiser wrote:

Agent wrote:

Not to forget the A310

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots

Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher

Not saying you're wrong but I'd be surprised. We were always told that the MD-11 had the fast app. speed of commercial jets in a normal config. At MLGW it was 168kts.[/quote]


Well, exactly the poster indicated that Concorde had a much higher approach speed than other aircraft

Thats not correct, as your example shows, I’ve had VREF speeds over 160 knots in the 764 as another example

CosmicCruiser wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots

Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher

Not saying you're wrong but I'd be surprised. We were always told that the MD-11 had the fast app. speed of commercial jets in a normal config. At MLGW it was 168kts.

Ooh! That last bit is a little sneaky. Or did I misunderstand your logic? Help me please.
How often do MD-11s come in at MGLW?
I can believe that cargo MD-11Fs come in close to MGLW, if they are on short runs.
And the rest of the time their approach speed is something less than 168kts. How much less?

Besides we're now comparing freight trucks to a sports car. If so, it's no contest and the MD-11F wins!

Max Q wrote:

Well, exactly the poster indicated that Concorde had a much higher approach speed than other aircraft

Thats not correct, as your example shows, I’ve had VREF speeds over 160 knots in the 764 as another example

Likewise - would you care to elaborate under what circumstances that particular VREF occurred?

Concorde didn't carry freight, and 90% of it's loading was fuel. The remainder was around 8% pax, and the final 2% caviar & champagne.
Hence at the end of every flight, it was running empty.
I don't believe the same can be said for typical MD-11 and B764 ops.

As a comparison, if on that fateful day AF4590 had completed a circuit and come back to land at CDG, what do you suppose it's approach speed would have been? Fuel dumping as such wasn't an option, so I suppose it largely depends on how much of that heavy fuel load leaked & burnt away on the circuit. (Notwithstanding the fact the pilots would have been in a bit of a hurry anyways)

I should add that I agree with you both in principle; Concorde's 160 kts approach speed is surprisingly low, and IMHO not excessive. I just query some of the other numbers being thrown around.

p.s. I hope I have attributed the correct quotes to the right poster; it was getting a bit messy.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

CosmicCruiser wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots

Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher

Not saying you're wrong but I'd be surprised. We were always told that the MD-11 had the fast app. speed of commercial jets in a normal config. At MLGW it was 168kts.

Ooh! That last bit is a little sneaky. Or did I misunderstand your logic? Help me please.
How often do MD-11s come in at MGLW?
I can believe that cargo MD-11Fs come in close to MGLW, if they are on short runs.
And the rest of the time their approach speed is something less than 168kts. How much less?

Besides we're now comparing freight trucks to a sports car. If so, it's no contest and the MD-11F wins!

Max Q wrote:

Well, exactly the poster indicated that Concorde had a much higher approach speed than other aircraft

Thats not correct, as your example shows, I’ve had VREF speeds over 160 knots in the 764 as another example

Likewise - would you care to elaborate under what circumstances that particular VREF occurred?

Concorde didn't carry freight, and 90% of it's loading was fuel. The remainder was around 8% pax, and the final 2% caviar & champagne.
Hence at the end of every flight, it was running empty.
I don't believe the same can be said for typical MD-11 and B764 ops.

As a comparison, if on that fateful day AF4590 had completed a circuit and come back to land at CDG, what do you suppose it's approach speed would have been? Fuel dumping as such wasn't an option, so I suppose it largely depends on how much of that heavy fuel load leaked & burnt away on the circuit. (Notwithstanding the fact the pilots would have been in a bit of a hurry anyways)

I should add that I agree with you both in principle; Concorde's 160 kts approach speed is surprisingly low, and IMHO not excessive. I just query some of the other numbers being thrown around.

p.s. I hope I have attributed the correct quotes to the right poster; it was getting a bit messy.

Well, of course Vapp will be a factor of your landing weight and when speaking of "fastest" I assumed you must look at what would be the max. I'm also just considering normal ops, not abnormal situations where speeds can really be skewed. And yes we saw MLGW a number of times (or at least very close). I remember often on the Dubai-Paris leg for some reason. On the average flight we would see Vapp around 145kts +/-3kts. Of course the Concorde was a special case and as you pointed out it was empty when it arrived at destination and of the few times I was in the air when it arrived IAD ATC created a sterile airspace for it. That can't said for the average airliner. They certainly weren't going to enter holding.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

CosmicCruiser wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Concorde final approach speed was around 160 knots

Not really that fast or excessive, several narrow and widebody airliners use a comparable final approach speed or higher

Not saying you're wrong but I'd be surprised. We were always told that the MD-11 had the fast app. speed of commercial jets in a normal config. At MLGW it was 168kts.

Ooh! That last bit is a little sneaky. Or did I misunderstand your logic? Help me please.
How often do MD-11s come in at MGLW?
I can believe that cargo MD-11Fs come in close to MGLW, if they are on short runs.
And the rest of the time their approach speed is something less than 168kts. How much less?

Besides we're now comparing freight trucks to a sports car. If so, it's no contest and the MD-11F wins!

Max Q wrote:

Well, exactly the poster indicated that Concorde had a much higher approach speed than other aircraft

Thats not correct, as your example shows, I’ve had VREF speeds over 160 knots in the 764 as another example

Likewise - would you care to elaborate under what circumstances that particular VREF occurred?

Concorde didn't carry freight, and 90% of it's loading was fuel. The remainder was around 8% pax, and the final 2% caviar & champagne.
Hence at the end of every flight, it was running empty.
I don't believe the same can be said for typical MD-11 and B764 ops.

As a comparison, if on that fateful day AF4590 had completed a circuit and come back to land at CDG, what do you suppose it's approach speed would have been? Fuel dumping as such wasn't an option, so I suppose it largely depends on how much of that heavy fuel load leaked & burnt away on the circuit. (Notwithstanding the fact the pilots would have been in a bit of a hurry anyways)

I should add that I agree with you both in principle; Concorde's 160 kts approach speed is surprisingly low, and IMHO not excessive. I just query some of the other numbers being thrown around.

p.s. I hope I have attributed the correct quotes to the right poster; it was getting a bit messy.

The 764, like the 753 had to incorporate higher take off and landing speeds to preserve tail clearance with the longer fuselage of those variants


Close to MGLW with strong / gusty winds could easily require a VREF speed of over 160 knots on the 764, the 753 was a bit slower


Personally I preferred the higher approach speeds especially in gusty winds, it made for a more stable flight path and the aircraft went ‘where you pointed it’


The 752 in contrast had quite a low VREF and with that large ‘lifty’ wing you practically had to shoot it down, in strong winds it was like a kite, I started using F25 in those conditions rather than F30 and that helped significantly

Max Q wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

I don't have any data, but I've heard the 762 is a beast.

Continental’s 767-224ER’s had the highest possible thrust engine possible. I believe it had similar performance to a 752 despite being heavier by a lot.

Not similar, better, it was the only aircraft that could make a 752 look underpowered


A rocketship, and incredibly responsive

This reminds me of a time when I was in the jumpseat on a CO 762 from IAH to EWR, and we achieved about 4,000 fpm all the way to cruise. Definitely one of my favorite aircraft.

modesto2 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

Continental’s 767-224ER’s had the highest possible thrust engine possible. I believe it had similar performance to a 752 despite being heavier by a lot.

Not similar, better, it was the only aircraft that could make a 752 look underpowered


A rocketship, and incredibly responsive

This reminds me of a time when I was in the jumpseat on a CO 762 from IAH to EWR, and we achieved about 4,000 fpm all the way to cruise. Definitely one of my favorite aircraft.

It was a sweet machine, shame it didn’t stick around long